I learnt this truth table in secondary school in Hong Kong, without explanation; but I was lazy to find the reason, just kept in mind. It takes nearly fifty years to get the reason today. It's wonderful! Thanks so much❤
Dude, you are Awesome...👍🏾 You're the one of few people who actually explain "->" correctly. I have to go searching the whole entire internet for an answer about 10 yrs ago. This video is going to go viral.
Essas últimas duas definições do operador de implicação sempre me pareceram muito arbitrárias, mas agora, sub sua ótica, elas fazer muito sentido =). Thanks, and good luck with the chanel!
The way I like thinking about it is that you can get any conclusion out of a wrong assumption. If we assume 0=1 then we can show that 0 is equal to all real numbers. Assume x is real. Then 0·x=1·x, equivalently 0=x. All of mathematics easily falls apart at this point, so I think it is very logical.
I learnt this truth table in secondary school in Hong Kong, without explanation; but I was lazy to find the reason, just kept in mind. It takes nearly fifty years to get the reason today. It's wonderful! Thanks so much❤
Dude, you are Awesome...👍🏾
You're the one of few people who actually explain "->" correctly. I have to go searching the whole entire internet for an answer about 10 yrs ago. This video is going to go viral.
@@LLockDown1 Thank you for your kind words! When I first learned it I didn’t understand either. I’m glad you find the video helpful!
Muy agradecido 🎉
Thank You
@@jakeaustria5445 You’re very welcome!
Essas últimas duas definições do operador de implicação sempre me pareceram muito arbitrárias, mas agora, sub sua ótica, elas fazer muito sentido =).
Thanks, and good luck with the chanel!
Muito obrigado!
The way I like thinking about it is that you can get any conclusion out of a wrong assumption. If we assume 0=1 then we can show that 0 is equal to all real numbers. Assume x is real. Then 0·x=1·x, equivalently 0=x. All of mathematics easily falls apart at this point, so I think it is very logical.